Rogue Landlords and ‘Beds in Sheds’

The phenomenon of landlords renting out accommodation in properties not designed for human habitation has recently received wide coverage in the media. This issue of so-called ‘beds in sheds’ affects many areas in the country, although London is especially affected, the problem being driven by high rents and an acute and worsening lack of affordable housing supply in the capital. This briefing looks at the issue, recent government actions, and London Councils’ response.

Background

The issue of ‘beds in sheds’ has gained media attention in recent months. Although the phenomenon of landlords renting out properties that are either not meant as dwellings or are unfit for human habitation is not new, media coverage of the issue has brought the subject to national attention.

Several issues are intertwined with ‘beds in sheds’. The buildings themselves are often in contravention of local planning rules, as they will have been built (or adapted for use) as dwellings without planning permission. They are often also in breach of environmental health law, either because of unsafe electrical wiring, inadequate plumbing and/or through overcrowding. While they are called ‘beds in sheds’, it has also been known for people to have been housed in vacant commercial premises and garages, so the problem is not confined simply to garden outbuildings.

The residents in these properties are often – but not exclusively – immigrants (both legal and illegal) and some landlords have either been found to have pre-existing criminal records, or have been engaging in criminal behaviour in their actions as landlords. The nature of these landlords has been recognised by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), which initially called them ‘criminal landlords’, although it currently calls them ‘rogue landlords’.

Hard data on the scale of the problem is not consistently collected across local authorities as the problem appears to be relatively localised to certain areas. It is therefore hard to gauge the extent to which it is worsening or (less likely) improving. However, on 2 October 2012 the London Fire Brigade released figures which showed that, over the last three years, there have been 235 fires – almost one every five days – in buildings that appeared to have people living in them when they should not have been. These blazes had caused four deaths and 45 serious injuries, more than one a month. Since 2009 there had been 16 fires, three fire deaths and seven serious fire injuries at incidents specifically involving ‘beds in sheds’. So, whether getting worse or better, the issue is certainly one that is significant and is causing a range of problems for local government and public services. The government response

The government has taken some action in relation to ‘rogue landlords’. In May 2012 the former Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, convened a group of officials (called a ‘National Taskforce’) from his department, the UBKA, and some of the most seriously affected local authorities to discuss good practice and what further actions might be needed to tackle the problem.

Following the convening of this group, DCLG announced that it would be allocating £1.8 million of funding (re-allocated from the Homelessness Grant) to nine local authorities to help them with their enforcement work: Brent; Ealing; Hillingdon; Hounslow; Newham; Peterborough; Redbridge; Slough; and Southwark. Notably, seven of these were London boroughs, highlighting the capital’s particular housing affordability and quality problems. This funding was welcomed by Sir Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham and London Councils’ housing spokesperson, who said that “thousands of people are forced to live in unfit, unsafe and cramped conditions because these opportunist landlords are taking advantage of a lack of affordable homes in the capital. This illegal accommodation puts pressure on local services like schools, healthcare and bin collections.”

DCLG have asked that the authorities that received this funding report back to them regularly to state how it has been spent, and thus help determine whether there may be lessons that others could learn from them in this process. At the same time, DCLG worked with the ‘National Taskforce’ to establish guidance setting out the nature of the problem, the powers available, the different elements of the issue, and examples of good practice in tackling it, and this was published at the end of August 2012.

Commentary

While the problem of ‘beds in sheds’ is not confined to London, it is certainly in the capital where the most concentrated and significant examples of the problem are to be found.

Recently London Councils conducted a survey of boroughs to determine the extent of the problem across the city. Just over 40 per cent of boroughs (mainly in outer London) viewed the ‘beds in sheds’ issue as significant and growing (with one borough estimating that half of its planning department’s enforcement activity was dealing with this issue alone), 18 per cent didn’t yet have a large problem locally but did expect it to get worse, and only 22 per cent didn’t view ‘beds in sheds’ as a problem (these were mainly central London boroughs with little land availability). All the boroughs said that it was an issue that they were aware of and which they were taking seriously, either with enforcement action through planning and housing routes or, where the issue was less significant, through closely monitoring the situation. In some areas enforcement has become more proactive in response to local circumstances, evidenced by the fact that Shelter found that local authority prosecutions of ‘rogue landlords’ increased by 77 per cent nationally in 2011.

Additionally, the boroughs were working, externally, closely with the UK Border Agency, the Metropolitan Police, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Fire Brigade and, internally, across planning, housing and consumer protection teams.

Because of the concentration of ‘beds in sheds’ in the capital, different boroughs have used various innovative and effective methods to identify them. Newham has used the Proceeds of Crime Act to confiscate significant sums from landlords with previous criminal records, and has also used Rent Recovery Orders to recover rents where they were paid to live in licensable properties that were not in fact licensed. In using these tools, Newham has recovered sums that more than cover its legal costs. Equally, Brent and Harrow have used the same legislation to secure a fine of over £300,000 from one convicted landlord.

1 www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/2137365 2 www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/roguelandlordsguide Other boroughs have: cross-referenced housing benefit data against council tax records to locate unusual claims that on investigation uncovered various fraudulent activity, including ‘beds in sheds’; worked with utility companies to find households with unusually high gas or electricity bills; set up enforcement teams across the different parts of the council to focus action more effectively; worked with the police to use aerial imagery from their helicopters to get a view of which back gardens contain illegal dwellings, and cross referencing these with council tax and planning records.

However, notwithstanding this innovative work – many examples of which were highlighted as good practice in the DCLG guidance published in August – because of the nature of the problem, frequently hidden in back gardens, councils are often dependent on the willingness of residents to contact them to make a complaint. Where a number of residents in a row of houses might all be doing the same thing, or see no problem in what is being done, then this can make enforcement a much harder and more time, labour and resource intensive process than it might otherwise be.

Despite the many challenges in tracking down and prosecuting rogue landlords, the boroughs are actively engaged in tackling the problem, and to this end, several of the most affected London boroughs, as well as London Councils, sit on the DCLG’s ‘National Taskforce’, and have been working to ensure that all available support is provided to local government from other agencies.

Additionally, one of the areas that London Councils is keen to investigate further is whether existing planning enforcement powers are sufficiently robust and, more importantly, quick. Currently councils are able to operate more rapidly under environmental health than planning legislation, and there may be scope to speed up this process in the future.

**Conclusion**

The problem of beds in sheds and rogue landlords is not now, but it has come to media prominence in recent months. Despite a lack of consistent evidence of the issue across London over a long period of time, it appears to be worsening not improving, not least because of the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in the capital in the context of a rapidly rising population that is not accounted for in many official records. London’s boroughs are working hard with central government, the police, the UK Border Agency and others to identify and prosecute ‘rogue landlords’, and are leading the way in good practice nationally in this area.

**Author:** Dominic Curran, Principal Project and Policy Officer (T: 020 7934 9508)

**Click here to send a comment or query to the author**

**Links:**

Dealing with Rogue Landlords Guide (DCLG)

**This member briefing has been circulated to:**

Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Housing and Planning